Progressive Sundae: - Ellen Tauscher

CA-10: It's On

babaloo — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:30:34 GMT

So absentee ballots arrived in today's mail. Here's the lowdown. First, the order of appearance on the ballot is as follows:

ANTHONY WOODS
Democratic
Economic Policy Analyst
DAVID HARMER
Republican
Independent Businessman
ADRIEL HAMPTON
Democratic
Investigator
GARY W. CLIFT
Republican
Retired Peace Officer
JEREMY CLOWARD
Green
College Instructor
MARK DESAULNIER
Democratic
Senator
JEROME "JERRY" DENHAM
American Independent
Insurance Agent
DAVID PETERSON
Republican
Accountability System Owner
JOHN GARAMENDI
Democratic
Lieutenant Governor/Rancher
JOHN TOTH
Republican
Physician
MARY C. MCILROY
Peace and Freedom
MARK LOOS
Republican
Small Business Owner
JOAN BUCHANAN
Democratic
Assemblywoman
CHRIS BUNCH
Republican
Small Business Owner

Along with the ballot, voters received a Voter Information Pamphlet, which contains the ballot statements for the candidates. Worth noting is that Democrat Adriel Hampton failed to submit a statement to the Registrar's office, and he was not included in the pamphlet. Hampton joins Republican Mark Loos and the Green, American Independent, and Peace & Freedom candidates, none of whom appear in the pamphlet. Also worth noting is that while all five Republicans who appear in the pamphlet listed their websites, Anthony Woods is the only Democrat who directed voters to his website for more information.

Conventional political wisdom holds that the ballot statement is the single most important component of a campaign -- it is the means by which many, if not most, voters will select their candidate. Also critical is the position on the ballot itself (the closer to the top, the better).

Anthony Woods would seem to be the best served by his slot at the top of the ballot and his page 3 ballot statement. Joan Buchanan is stuck near the bottom of the ballot, but the fact that her ballot statement leads on page 1 of the Voter Information Pamphlet should help her overcome the ballot position to some extent. That leaves Mark DeSaulnier stuck in the upper middle and John Garamendi in the lower middle of the pack, both ballot-wise and pamphlet-wise. That positioning could cost both DeSaulnier and Garamendi, if you believe all that conventional wisdom stuff.

You can read the Democratic ballot statements in their entirety on the flip...
Listed in the order (and format) in which they appear in the Voter Information Pamphlet:

JOAN BUCHANAN, Page 1

Once again, Joan Buchanan smokes the competition with a nearly pitch-perfect ballot statement.

My name is: Joan Buchanan
My age is: 56
My occupation is: Assemblywoman/Educator
Education and Qualifications:
BA Economics, University of California Santa Barbara
Our country is in an economic crisis, deeper and broader than any in our lifetimes. I have the strong financial skills and proven record of turning things around, which are desperately needed in Congress today.
My financial skills are rooted in private sector experience, refined by balancing public budgets. As Director of Commercial Operations at Delta Dental Plan, I streamlined operations, eliminated a huge patient claims backlog and turned the division around. I led a local school board, balancing 18 budgets in 18 years, taking the district from near bankruptcy to one of the best managed in the state.
As a single mother of five, I know how financial challenges affect a family's well-being. That's why my top priorities are using my financial skills to put people back to work and laying the foundation for a better tomorrow.
Sustaining economic prosperity requires a new approach -- making education a national priority. A well-educated, highly skilled workforce fuels technological innovation, increases our ability to compete globally and improves our economy. It will create the talent to solve critical issues in healthcare, environment and energy.
We need change. More of the same thinking will produce the same results. I offer common sense, hard work and a history of getting things done for our community.
I want to raise your expectations about what's possible, then go to Congress and work hard to exceed those expectations.
Let's get America turned around, up and working.
I'd be honored to have your vote.

ANTHONY WOODS, Page 3

Woods has campaigned extensively on his youth, his personal biography, and the issue of DADT. Certainly, it can't be an oversight that DADT, his expulsion from the military, and his age are never addressed in his ballot statement.

My name is: Anthony Woods
My age is:
My occupation is: Economic Policy Analyst
Education and Qualifications:
I am not one of the Sacramento politicans. I am a two tour Iraq war veteran who knows what it is like to walk in your shoes.
To get America back on track, we need to stop rewarding failed politics and start electing leaders who understand our strengths and struggles first hand.
I was born and raised here in our district, the son of [sic] single mother who made ends meet cleaning houses. For most of my life, I've lived [sic] the uncertainty of being unable to afford health insurance. As a graduate of West Point, I understand how access to a quality education changes lives.
My proudest achievement was bringing all 81 of my soldiers home from Iraq. Because I've led soldiers in battle, I know how important it is to have a Congress that knows our military and will fight for the care and benefits our veterans have earned when they come home.
In both the public and private sector, I've helped craft solutions that put Americans back to work and attract high wage jobs. I believe our local infrastructure and national laboratories can be catalysts for economic growth and a clean energy future. I'll fight to lower healthcare costs and cover everyone. I'll take bold action to stem the foreclosure crisis and restore accountability to our financial sector. And I believe we can send more young people to college by rewarding national service.
I'd be proud to earn your vote and hope you will join our campaign at www.AnthonyWoodsforCongress.com.

MARK DESAULNIER, Page 6

As you might expect, DeSaulnier's ballot statement is a gag-fest of Ellen Tauscher boot-licking. While I suspect that DeSaulnier was going for an Obama-esque appeal for bipartisanship, he seems to have overlooked the fact that at both the state and federal level, Republicans have refused to do anything other than say "No" in recent weeks. Unfortunately for DeSaulnier, the progressive base of the Democratic Party has noticed that Republicans are incapable of compromise. So when he heaps praise on Tauscher and then parrots her almost verbatim about looking past partisan bickering and working with both parties to solve our problems, he evokes Tauscher's inglorious record as a triangulating Blue Dog/New Democrat. I somehow doubt that was the effect he was going for, but that's the horse he's riding.

My name is: Mark DeSaulnier
My age is: 57
My occupation is: Senator/Businessman
Education and Qualifications:
Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher served the 10th District with great distinction for over a decade.
She knows the job. She knows the community. She knows the candidates running to replace her. Congresswoman Tauscher chose to endorse only one candidate in this election.
Ellen Tauscher endorsed Senator Mark DeSaulnier for Congress.
"In the current economic crisis, Mark DeSaulnier is the type of leader we need in Congress; he will look past the partisan bickering and build broad coalitions to solve our nation's problems." Ellen Tauscher
"Mark DeSaulnier is a passionate progressive who will stand up for consumers, not corporations, and help President Obama finally pass universal health care for all Americans." Congressman George Miller
As the only candidate who has been a local public official, business owner, and single father of two sons, Mark DeSaulnier understands the fear and uncertainty families are facing in the economic downturn as more workers lose their jobs and their health insurance.
"Like you, I'm tired of the partisan bickering in Congress and will work with both parties to solve our problems. As your Congressman, I will be independent of special interest groups like big tobacco, insurance and drug companies who have stood in the way of providing universal health care for every American. I will work with President Obama to make health care affordable for everyone - lower prescription drug prices and no higher rates for pre-existing conditions. The time for real change is now. I ask for your vote on September 1. Thank you."
Mark DeSaulnier

JOHN GARAMENDI, Page 8

Now, I'm a pretty big fan of the semi-colon, but a ballot statement that is comprised of one long run-on paragraph, utilizing no less than 13 semi-colons, verges on being unreadable.

My name is: John Garamendi
My age is:
My occupation is: California Lieutenant Governor, Former Insurance Commissioner, Rancher
Education and Qualifications:
America is at a crossroads. Change is on the horizon. President Obama is leading us towards better times -- I want to help him. I will focus on creating jobs and financial regulation; protecting Social Security and Medicare; enacting universal healthcare; withdrawing our troops from Iraq; protecting consumers; creating an energy policy that halts global warming and builds renewable energy systems; and making college available to all. I have a proven record of state, national, and international service. As Lieutenant Governor and Chairman of the Commission on Economic Development we developed employment strategies that promote existing industries and transition California to a green economy. As President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of Interior, I lead [sic] efforts to defend the environment and water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. As California's Insurance Commissioner, I created the nation's best consumer protection agency, forced insurance companies to pay claims in the Oakland Hills fire; protected seniors from fraud and patients from denial of claims; and lowered homeowner and workers compensation premiums. I will write laws to protect consumers and regulate Wall Street, and make sure that Social Security is not privatized and Medicare is protected. I will work to add four lanes to Highway 4 in Antioch; a new Caldecott Tunnel; extend BART to Antioch; and increase funding for education; green energy; and medical research. I graduated from UC Berkeley and Harvard, MBA. Patti and I served in Peace Corps Ethiopia. We have six children, nine grandchildren. I am endorsed by President Clinton, and Vice-President Gore.

Yes, Katie, Seriously.

babaloo — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 01:59:13 GMT

Well, the State Department has responded to the complaint filed by Jason Bezis with regards to Ellen Tauscher's endorsement of Mark DeSaulnier. As you might have expected, they're reluctant to acknowledge that their new Undersecretary, Ellen Tauscher, has acted illegally in continuing to endorse Mark DeSaulnier as her replacement. But they also have asked the DeSaulnier campaign to immediately remove Tauscher's name from all of his campaign material. (Emphasis added)

July 29, 2009
Dear Mr. Bezis,
We are in receipt of your letter of complaint dated July 16 and follow-up letter of July 27, concerning activities of Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher. The Department takes seriously our guidelines concerning political activities of senior employees, and we appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. In that spirit, we have reviewed the complaint letter and its attachments. We believe that the materials disclose no violation of law or policy.
Our guidelines do not restrict political activities of Department employees before they join the Department. Under Secretary Tauscher began as an employee of the State Department on June 26,2009, having resigned from her former position as a Member of Congress shortly beforehand. The endorsements you cite in your letter and attachments refer to her by titles such as "Representative" and "Congresswoman," and not "Under Secretary." We understand that all these references concern endorsements made before she began employment with the State Department. Endorsements made before State Department employment violate no Department directive. You have not identified an instance where she endorsed publicly a partisan political candidate after having been appointed as a State Department employee.
Under Secretary Tauscher is committed to the highest standards of ethical conduct. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, on behalf of Under Secretary Tauscher I have asked Senator DeSaulnier to remove all references in his campaign material of any endorsement she may have made.
Again, thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
Sincerely,
James H. Thessin Deputy Legal Adviser and
Designated Agency Ethics Official

And what does DeSaulnier campaign spokeswoman Katie Merrill have to say in response? Well, she hasn't yet issued a comment. But I'm guessing when she does, it won't be "Seriously?"

CA-10: Joan Buchanan's A+ Campaign

babaloo — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 22:00:20 GMT

Before I get all wound up here, I'd like to start with a not insignificant disclaimer. I do not support Joan Buchanan. In fact, I view her as being dangerously close to a clone of Ellen Tauscher, with her much-vaunted "follow-through" and "pragmatism" really just being code for a big-business background, corporate outlook, and a willingness to concede points before she even arrives at the table. But that being said, she is running the best and smartest campaign I've seen in a long time, and I'm afraid that she's leaving her competition in CA-10 in the dust.

Much has been made of the fact that Buchanan's fundraising was anemic for the second quarter and that she's only in the game because she lent her campaign $250,000 (which she can easily afford). But I'd argue that her approach to financing her campaign was nothing short of genius. If you've ever been to a campaign training seminar, the first rule you may have heard is this: "Campaigns have three finite resources: Volunteers, money, and time. How you manage these three resources will be the difference between winning and losing."

Well, by taking the issue of money off the table in one fell swoop, Buchanan freed up herself and her campaign to focus on the other two resources.

Buchanan had an army of volunteers who worked for her just a few short months ago, and many of them are enthusiastically on board for this run as well. Added to that is a phalanx of paid canvassers (her FEC report showed that she was paying 30 staffers as of June 30). So it shouldn't really come as that much of a surprise that Buchanan's campaign had knocked on 20,000 doors by July 1.

But what is stunning is that the Buchanan campaign has continued to ramp up its canvassing program. Last week, they blew past the milestone of 55,000 doors knocked. On the Saturday before last, with temperatures hovering over 100, Buchanan had 54 canvassers out going door to door.

How big is this? Flip it...
Well, the DNC did some research in advance of the 2008 presidential campaign, and their study showed that the contact required to garner one vote for your cause/candidate requires the following:

389 mailers
460 phone calls
14 doors knocked

So the robocalls, sign wars, and all the intensive phone banking that those other campaigns have been engaged in are pretty much ineffectual compared to good old-fashioned door knocking.

And while it should go without saying, the very most impressive facet of the Buchanan campaign's canvassing operation may be that they are so organized and have such good data management that they actually know how many doorsteps they've visited.

So Buchanan seems to have both money and volunteers nailed down. Which brings us to the third factor: Time. With California in the midst of a financial melt-down, all three candidates have had to carve out time for their official duties, fundraising, and campaigning. As I mentioned previously, by not stressing over fundraising, Buchanan has given herself more time to focus on the race. And she's done a good job there, as well. Instead of dragging a giant bear and a coterie of fanboys to the same tired Democratic club events with the same hundred people over and over and over again, she's been branching out and talking to members of the larger community and holding townhall events with an emphasis on helping local small businesses.

It's also probably worth mentioning here that Buchanan has avoided pitfalls where all of the other Democratic candidates have stumbled. Her campaign has abided by local laws that govern the posting of campaign signs; it has not engaged in any illegal robocalling; there has been no ethically questionable use of state campaign funds; there has been no illegal endorsement (or whining about same); and there have been no scab tee-shirts. There's just been a smart and focused effort to contact voters in CA-10.

And now, with absentee ballots due to be sent out in just one week, I'd look for Buchanan to step up both her canvassing and her direct mail program. She's already sent out one mail piece, copied here for your viewing pleasure, and it's pretty impressive.

While Garamendi and DeSaulnier have been squaring off against each other, Joan Buchanan has run an incredibly disciplined and somewhat under the radar type of campaign, one that has been well-planned, well-organized, and well-executed. I'm just curious to see at what point Garamendi and DeSaulnier will realize the threat she poses and turn their guns on her.

CA-10: Garamendi Campaign Astroturfs DKos

babaloo — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:33:15 GMT

Yesterday, DailyKos diarist Fenric posted a diary about his/her encounter with a Joan Buchanan canvasser who showed up at the front door. The crux of the diary was that when Fenric questioned the canvasser about how Buchanan intended to vote on the California budget, the canvasser brightly assured him/her that Buchanan intended to support the atrocity that's been wrought by the Big 5. Fenric then declared his/her intention to never vote for Buchanan ever, ever again. All well and good.

That is, until Garamendi staffer SPD waded into the comment thread to gratuitously trash Garamendi's opponents, Mark DeSaulnier and Joan Buchanan, on unrelated issues. And without identifying himself as a Garamendi staffer.

Of course, what makes it really funny (or maybe just pathetic) is that this staffer mocked a reference to Buchanan's "grassroots campaign" as he was astroturfing the netroots on Garamendi's behalf.

Smooth move... (flip it)

On the subject of Tauscher...
Take a gander at who De Saulnier has inherited as his campaign manager...
Yes, that would be the infamous Katie Merrill.
Here's how kos commented on Katie defending Tauscher against the netroots a mere two and a half years ago:
It's not surprising that this writer, Ellen Tauscher campaign manager Katie Merrill, would try to head off what will be a vicious fight for this seat in a primary. Unlike her apparent hero Joe Lieberman, Tauscher won't get a "do-over" if she loses. And it's no surprise, if you read her full whine, that she mischaracterizes the nature and source of the local opposition to Tauscher. Again, she's taking a book from her hero Joe Lieberman.

And now she's overseeing the coronation of De Saulnier as the new heir apparent of Tauscher's seat.
Following the theme of the diary, I've found that, from my personal experience, Buchanan's paid canvassers are incredibly under-trained, under-informed, and generally clueless. Which is odd that the article in Roll Call today claimed that she has a "grassroots operation." Ha, that's a good one.
by SPD

Seriously?

babaloo — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:44:37 GMT

It turns out that a fellow by the name of Jason Bezis must be on the same wavelength as Progressive Sundae. On the same day last week that this blog questioned the legality of Ellen Tauscher's endorsement of Mark DeSaulnier, Bezis, a lawyer from Lafayette, filed a 17-page complaint with the State Department vis-à-vis that endorsement. Citing much of the same material as the PS post (the State Department cable banning political endorsements by presidential appointees, the prominent Tauscher endorsement on DeSaulnier's website, and the campaign brochure that features Tauscher on three of its four pages), Bezis requested the following remedy:

I believe that the State Department Legal Adviser, State Department Inspector General and/or another responsible entity (e.g., Office of Special Counsel division that enforces the Hatch Act) should require Undersecretary Tauscher to repudiate her endorsements of all candidates for partisan political office, especially in election races that are now underway. Her statement should specifically state, "I neither endorse nor oppose any candidate in the special elections of September 1, 2009 and November 3, 2009 for California's 10th Congressional District, notwithstanding any of my previous statements. I instruct all candidates for those elections to cease and desist from use of my name and likeness in campaign advertisements, broadcasts, campaign literature, and similar media where they state or imply that I have endorsed or opposed their candidacies."

Seriously... on the flip...
Of course, the Garamendi campaign, eager to make political hay, tried to piggy-back onto the Bezis complaint with its own letter to Tauscher, urging her to withdraw her endorsement to save herself potential jeopardy. Josh Richman picked up the story a couple of days later, eliciting this statement from the DeSaulnier campaign:

DeSaulnier campaign spokeswoman Katie Merrill offered just one word of response today: "Seriously?"

That one-word comment probably sounds depressingly familiar to a lot of Democrats in CA-10. You see, Katie Merrill is a former Tauscher campaign staffer and, as such, has carefully honed the condescending arrogance that Tauscher practiced in responding to voters: If a constituent has a problem, never, ever acknowledge that there might be some basis for the complaint; instead, just infer that the voter is a) ignorant, b) naïve, and c) clearly worthy of contempt.

Of course, some of you may remember how well that strategy worked for Katie Merrill in her disastrous 2006 blog post at California Majority Report. That's the one where she tried to defuse progressive threats to primary Tauscher by comparing Tauscher to Joe Lieberman, earning Merrill the netroots nickname "Counterproductive Katie." Yet this is apparently the path that the DeSaulnier campaign has chosen.

Oh, and one more thing. Just to serve as a little extra validation for the position advanced in the Straight From The Horse's Mouth, Pt. 1 post, Bezis responded to questions from Richman as to whether his complaint was merely motivated by support for another candidate as follows (emphasis added):

Bezis wrote back to me overnight, stating he'd endorsed DeSaulnier early on but revoked that endorsement "motivated in part by the campaign literature touting Ellen Tauscher's backing of his campaign."

Seriously.

Straight From The Horse's Mouth, Pt. 2

babaloo — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:14:14 GMT

When the news broke last March that Ellen Tauscher was going to be nominated to a position in the State Department, the jockeying to replace her began immediately. In those early days, back before John Garamendi even quite knew where CA-10 was located, Mark DeSaulnier was considered the prohibitive favorite. (Remember, this was when folks were speculating about whether Joe Canciamilla would enter the race.)

It appears that from those early days onward, DeSaulnier and his campaign consultants settled on a campaign strategy from which they would not deviate:

"The reality is that this primary is coming down to who the Big Four support -- [Rep.] George Miller, Ellen Tauscher, Torlakson and labor," said California Democratic consultant John Shallman, who is working for DeSaulnier. "And I'm extremely confident they're all going to be behind Mark."

And that's been the DeSaulnier message in a nutshell: "Leaders we trust, trust Mark DeSaulnier." But there are some serious problems with that message... on the flip.
DeSaulnier and his strategists seem to have missed out on a little phenomenon that's swept the country recently -- empowerment politics. In 2004, a guy named Howard Dean convinced many Democrats that they had the power to take control of their government rather than being told what to do by their elected officials. That rebellion moved to neighboring CA-11 in 2006, with a guy named Jerry McNerney, when the Democratic base overwhelmingly rejected the idea that its candidate should be selected by -- wait for it -- Ellen Tauscher (and endorsed by George Miller, Tom Torlakson and Contra Costa labor).

Nevertheless, Mark DeSaulnier has chosen to retrace the steps of Steve Filson in his quest for Congress. But it gets worse. Because that endorsement by Tauscher? The one that's splashed across his website and takes up three full pages of a four-page piece of campaign literature? Well, it's a violation of the Hatch Act and the State Department ethics guidelines.

The following guidance was issued by the Ethics division of the Department of State Legal Adviser's office.

Cable #: 035610 of 02/18/2004
Subject: POLITICAL ACTIVITIES RULES FOR SENATE-CONFIRMED PRESIDENITAL EMPLOYEES [...]
3. THE RULES INCORPORATE THE 1993 REVISIONS TO THE HATCH ACT (PUB. L. 103-94) AND IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS (5 CFR PART 734). IN ADDITION, THEY INCORPORATE POLICY RESTRICTIONS SPECIFIC TO THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT VIOLATIONS OF THESE RESTRICTIONS COULD LEAD TO CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES, AS WELL AS DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
8. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES [...]
WORKING FOR A PARTY OR CANDIDATE: YOU MAY NOT: [...]
ENDORSE OR OPPOSE A CANDIDATE FOR PARTISAN POLITICAL OFFICE IN A POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT, BROADCAST, CAMPAIGN LITERATURE, OR SIMILAR MEDIUM

So by allowing her endorsement to continue to be used in campaign literature and on a campaign website, Ellen Tauscher is actively flouting federal law just a little over two weeks into her new job.

In the meantime, DeSaulnier is left holding an empty bag. He's already alienated some segment of the progressive base that he'll need to win by associating himself with the unpopular Tauscher; and now he's in a position where continuing to use her endorsement (which was only ever going to be effective in capturing low-information voters) is not legally available to him at exactly the point where he needs to expand his targeted universe.

It seems somewhat akin to burning a bridge while you're still standing on it -- you can't move forward, and you've already destroyed the path back. Not smart. Not smart at all.

Straight From The Horse's Mouth, Pt. 1

babaloo — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:56:40 GMT

We've all heard the old saying "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" -- to wit, when someone gives you a gift, don't question its value; instead, just accept it and be grateful.

But the reality is a little bit different. In our world today, if someone offers you a gift horse, you'd better check it out carefully. Looking at a horse's mouth will tell you a lot about its age and overall health. And with the expense of keeping a horse pushing well over $1,000/month locally, a little bit of caution at the outset (e.g.; looking that gift horse in the mouth) could help you avoid being burdened with a costly liability.

And so it's been in CA-10 with Mark DeSaulnier and his endorsement by Ellen Tauscher. I'm guessing that when Tauscher's endorsement was offered, it never occurred to Mark DeSaulnier to question such a gift and weigh the overall costs associated with receiving the seal of approval of an incumbent who is widely disliked by the progressive base of the Democratic Party. He just accepted the endorsement gift and dismissed its potential downside.

But the expenses associated with Ellen Tauscher's endorsement have mounted, with precious little indication that there's any real upside to having received her imprimatur.

More on the flip...
Just last week, the Livermore Independent Times (PDF) published a letter from Livermore resident Tom O'Neill who, after excoriating Tauscher for her positions and votes vis-à-vis Iraq, went on to throw down this gauntlet:

I regard [Tauscher] as a full fledged accessory to a horrendous miscarriage of justice, and the only reason I can imagine why anyone would be praising her now ("She's been a tremendous help on transportation." "She's been a good friend to the Lab.") is because somehow those millions of suffering Iraqis, those bereaved spouses, those childless parents, those maimed children - are not quite real people to those who pile on the praises.
For the 10th District, I will not vote for any candidate whom Ellen Tauscher endorses. Further, I do not intend to vote for any candidate who praises Ellen. I would sooner see the office unoccupied than see the likes of her ever represent me again.

And O'Neill is not alone. At various candidate forums and meetings throughout the district, activist Democrats murmur when the subject of Tauscher comes up, and eyebrows raise as people peruse DeSaulnier's campaign literature.

Cover

Page 2

Page 3

Back page

Now, try not to have nightmares tonight. More about the Tauscher endorsement and DeSaulnier's disastrous campaign strategy tomorrow...

Kyl Has Placed Hold On Tauscher Confirmation

babaloo — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 06:37:55 GMT

X-posted at California Represent!

Way back in April, I wrote a post about Sen. Jon Kyl's plan to place a hold on Ellen Tauscher's confirmation to the position of Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

Well, it looks like Kyl's threat was far from idle. That hold was placed sometime last week, although there seems to be a lot of confusion as to whether Kyl put a hold on just Tauscher and one other nominee or whether it's a blanket hold on all State Department nominees. The precise reason for the hold seems unclear as well.

Here's what The Cable is reporting about Kyl's action:

A Congressional source says that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) put a hold on all State Department nominees earlier this week because he is not satisifed with the information he has been receiving from the administration on the progress of arms control negotiations with Russia. [...]

Flip it...

Senate Foreign Relations Committe staffers claimed to be in the dark about any blanket hold. They noted that some nominees had been confirmed just this week. [...]
They said only two nominees were put on hold from going to a unanimous consent Senate floor vote: Rep. Ellen Tauscher, the nominee for under secretary of state for arms control and international security, and Kurt Campbell, the nominee to be assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.
But a second Hill source who did not want to be identified said it was his understanding that all State nominees were currently on hold by Kyl, and that the chairman of the SFRC, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the State Department, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) were trying to resolve the matter. A third Hill source also said it was his understanding all State nominees were currently under a blanket hold from Kyl.
The State Department said it couldn't immediately provide an answer.

So that's one explanation for the hold.

Of course, back in April, the reason being given was a little different:

Tauscher has made it very clear she is skeptical of the Groundbased Midcourse anti-missile system and wants to see much more system testing done. Kyl is one of the system's biggest boosters on the Hill.

But now, in addition to the two reasons that have been floated by Kyl's office, The Cable mentions a third, different possibility for why the hold on Tauscher's nomination could be extended as part of a larger Republican strategy:

Meantime, another source says Republicans are threatening to put appointments for the entire administration on hold due to their ire over the scheduling of Obama's Supreme Court justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor for a July hearing.

And as I'm sure you know, until that hold is removed, there's no official Congressional race in CA-10. Get ready for a lot more candidate forums. Sigh.

Garamendi Poll Riddled With Errors

babaloo — Wed, 06 May 2009 19:09:44 GMT

I want to amplify a little bit on the post by ajsuited yesterday because the more I find out about the Garamendi poll that he wrote about, the worse it smells.

The press release about this poll from the Garamendi campaign gave out limited information as to how the poll was conducted, which raised a number of questions. However, Peter Charles left a comment at Calitics where he shared more information about the details of the poll. Those details exposed three glaring errors that jumped out from the information that was provided to the poll's participants.

When the participants were given bios of the three Democratic candidates, here's what they heard about Mark DeSaulnier, Joan Buchanan, and John Garamendi:

3a. Democrat State Senator Mark Desaulnier has served in the state legislature since 2004. Before that he served on the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors from 1996 to 2004. His top priority issues will be rebuilding the country's economy, implementing clean energy programs, and regulating Wall Street banks. He is endorsed by Congress members Ellen Tauscher and George Miller, local firefighters, teachers, police and environmental groups.

3b. Democrat State Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan was elected to the State Assembly last November. Before that she served for 10 years on the San Ramon (ruh-MOAN) Valley school board. Her top priority issues will be more jobs and improving the economy, increasing renewable energy programs, and reforming public education. She will likely be endorsed by local elected leaders, school board members, teachers, and civil rights and womens groups.

3c. Democrat John Garamendi is California's Lieutenant Governor. He has lived in the Sacramento portion of Congressional District 10 for 30 years. He previously served as Deputy Secretary of the Interior for Bill Clinton. He is running for Congress to continue reforming health care, rebuild our economy around clean energy, and reform bank and credit card laws. He will be endorsed by local nurses, firefighters, teachers, police officers as well as former President Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

The problem here is that the pollster misrepresented all three candidates, and he did it in a way that predictably favored the candidate who hired him.

As we've noted extensively on these pages, John Garamendi does not now, nor has he ever "lived in the Sacramento portion of Congressional District 10." That's just an outright falsehood, as are the representations made about both DeSaulnier's and Buchanan's record of public service.

Mark DeSaulnier joined the state legislature in 2006, not 2004. Before that, DeSaulnier served on the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors from 1993 to 2006. Thirteen years, not eight. Four terms, not two.

And Joan Buchanan served on the San Ramon Valley school board from 1990 to 2008. Eighteen years, not ten. Five terms, not three.

You have to ask yourself this question. If a pollster will lie about both his own candidate's and the opposing candidates' biographies, what else will he lie about?

And those aren't the only problems. To get into the really wonkerific world of why Garamendi's polling sample is all wrong, flip it...
This is how the Garamendi press release described the polling sample:

The poll was conducted between May 1st and May 4th by Jim Moore and JMM Research. Interviews were conducted with a 400-person sample from the 10th congressional district. Turnout was projected at 30 percent, and likely turnout was projected to be 55 percent Democratic, 33 percent Republican, and 12 percent independent. The poll had a +/- 5 percent margin of error.

For starters, a +/-5 percent margin of error is large. For those of you who are new to polling, +/-5 means that you need to give a five percent leeway to each candidate in the race. Relative to this particular poll, that means that Garamendi's numbers could be as much as 5 points higher or lower, AND DeSaulnier's and Buchanan's numbers could also be as much as 5 points higher or lower. So while, at one extreme, it could reflect a blowout with Garamendi at 29 and DeSaulnier/Buchanan at 8/6, the converse could also be true. You could also have Garamendi at 19 and DeSaulnier/Buchanan at 18/16 -- or a dead heat.

But there are also real and significant flaws in the poll's underlying assumptions.

To explain this part, I've gathered the following data from the March 2009 SoS registration statistics, along with the CA-10 primary results from June 2008, and the Proposition results from CA-10 in the June 2008 primary.

Voter Data for CA-10
Total Voters % Total Dems % Total Reps % Total DTS % Other %
March 2009 Registration 367,306 100% 173,498 47.24% 106,275 28.93% 73,015 19.88% 14,518 3.96%
June 2008 CA-10 Primary Results w/win % 85,814 N/A 55,427 64.59% 30,324 35.34% N/A N/A 63 .03%
CA-10 Voter Turnout as a % of Registration 85,814 23.36% 55,427 31.95% 30,324 28.53% N/A N/A 63 .43%

	Total Voters	%	Total Dems	%	Total Reps	%	Total DTS	%	Other	%
March 2009 Registration	367,306	100%	173,498	47.24%	106,275	28.93%	73,015	19.88%	14,518	3.96%
June 2008 CA-10 Primary Results w/win %	85,814	N/A	55,427	64.59%	30,324	35.34%	N/A	N/A	63	.03%
CA-10 Voter Turnout as a % of Registration	85,814	23.36%	55,427	31.95%	30,324	28.53%	N/A	N/A	63	.43%

Got that? 23.36% voter turnout in last June's Congressional primary.

But what's fascinating about this is that Democratic and Republican registration amounts to 76.17 of the total voters; DTS and the others account for the remaining 23.84%. Now, if you were registered either Democratic or Republican for the June primary, you automatically received a partisan ballot. If you were DTS, you would have received a partisan ballot only if you specifically requested it; otherwise, you would have received a ballot that did not allow you to vote in, specifically (for our purposes), the Congressional race. Of the remaining parties, only Peace & Freedom fielded a candidate, so the members of the other parties would not have had a Congressional vote.

Now, there were two propositions on the ballot as well, where all voters could cast their vote, regardless of party affiliation. It's interesting to note that the total number of votes cast on Props 98 and 99 (regarding eminent domain) in CA-10 was significantly higher than the number of votes cast in the CA-10 Congressional race.

Total Voters % Turnout
CA-10 Congressional Race 85,814 23.36%
Prop 98 113,139 30.8%
Prop 99 112,584 30.65%

	Total Voters	% Turnout
CA-10 Congressional Race	85,814	23.36%
Prop 98	113,139	30.8%
Prop 99	112,584	30.65%

So we can assume that at least 113,139 voters turned out in CA-10 in the June primary. But of those 113,139, only 85,814 cast a ballot in the partisan Congressional race -- or 75.84% -- almost exactly equivalent to the 76.16% who are registered with the two major parties. That would tend to prove the notion that DTS voters seldom pull Democratic or Republican ballots in primaries.

All of which is a really long-winded explanation for why I don't see any way to justify setting up a poll to reflect a 12% DTS participation in the coming CA-10 special primary. That pretty much leaves us with a deeply flawed +/-5 MoE poll that, in all likelihood, overestimates turnout and takes 12% of its data from people who are demonstrably unlikely to vote in the upcoming special election (remember, the margin of Garamendi's lead is 11%), while undersampling Democrats by 10%.

Obviously, the Garamendi campaign was hoping to make a big splash with this poll and establish its candidate as the strong frontrunner. Instead, because the poll is so thoroughly riddled with errors of both fact and judgment, they're just looking desperate.

About that Garamendi CA-10 Poll

ajsuited — Wed, 06 May 2009 01:36:43 GMT

I had a discussion with a colleague about the recent poll touted by the Garamendi campaign. After her analysis and my own this is what came to mind:

In the movie '16 Candles' Anthony Michael Hall's character got Molly Ringwald's underwear to prove that he got some. But in reality Ringwald's character gave it to Michael-Hall so he could pretend to have some cred amongst his underclassman brethren.

More over the flip:
I operated under the premise that the pollster's turnout model is wildly optimistic. 30% turnout in a special election? I think low 20's is more apt based on past types of races.

Does low turnout benefit him or the other candidates? IMO it helps the others (DeSauliner and Buchanan specifically) as this base of the base is highly informed and may not be as receptive to this Arlen Specter-esque move by Garamendi. Now under these assumptions then Buchanan dropping out helps DeSauliner tremendously and vice versa.

Additionally I'd think that with 80% name recognition and getting only 24% support I'd be a bit concerned. There is a measurement called vote expansion and DeSaulnier, et al have a lot more room to grow as the CA-10 electorate doesn't know them.

Lastly releasing these numbers at this point in the race strikes me as a stupid move. They are showing their hand way too early and it begs the question why? It seems that the CM/GC may have had a moment of panic and had the pollster draft up this polling memo getting the underwear to show so to say..

Below are the comments from my a colleague that wanted to stay out of this:
------------

There are more active voters in CA-11 than in CA-10. I've been using last June's primary as a sort of benchmark, since it was bifurcated from the presidential and there were no statewide offices. The uncontested Congressional nominees were at the top of the ticket, with largely uncontested state senate and state assembly races below, along with a couple of propositions. A real dud.

So we have 376K registered voters in CA-11: 173K Dems (47%), 106K Reps (29%), and 81K DTS (18%)

Total turnout was 85K... 55K Dem votes and 30K Rep votes.

So total turnout was 22%. Broken down as a percentage of party registration, Dem turnout was 31% and Rep turnout was 28%. But that doesn't include DTS.

And 65% of the vote went to the single Dem candidate, 35% went to the single Republican candidate.

I'm assuming they're looking at voter file data to come up with that number of 55% Democratic, 33% Republican 12% DTS. Frankly it makes no sense that you would have such strong turn-out among DTS voters in this race so I'm not sure exactly what they're doing.

But I think that Rupf's place in the race is severely overstated, but since he was identified as the sole Rep in the race he drew potential votes based just on that.

There's was so little information made public about this poll, that I suspect they pulled a few numbers that made them look strong and buried the rest. Did they give a bio of the candidates and then ask which way they would vote? Did that change the results? Because with 80% name recognition, I find the 24% vote kind of low -- it would seem to me that doesn't bode extremely well for JG. Also note that the MoE is 5% which at least theoretically, could put JG, MD and JB all neck and neck.

All told, I'm not giving a lot of credence to the poll, especially with no cross tabs available.

Garamendi On Transportation

babaloo — Tue, 05 May 2009 01:50:45 GMT

So even though I'm getting a little bored talking about John Garamendi, I just can't help myself today. A couple hours ago, Garamendi posted his very first diary at Daily Kos.

Apparently, Garamendi's been stung by criticism that he doesn't understand local problems that concern the voters in CA-10, like traffic. So to show that he's down with the hot-button issues in the district, Garamendi went to the Metropolitan Traffic Commission website, and read up on their regional 25-year transportation plan for the Bay Area, Transportation 2035. Every five years, the MTC updates and reprioritizes the previous 25-year plan so that there is an ongoing vision for handling the future demands of the nine-county Bay Area.

So in his diary, Garamendi basically gave a broad outline of the findings in the latest plan, which in many ways aren't that different from the Transportation 2030 plan released in 2005. There's a heavy emphasis on the use of public policy tools to encourage smart growth near transit hubs, which in turn leads to increased use of public transportation, as well as a willingness to look toward HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes, the proceeds of which would be used to fund highway maintenance and transportation programs for the elderly, poor, and disabled.

While I commend Garamendi for studying up on the MTC proposals and presenting his findings to Daily Kos readers, I'm a little surprised that he apparently missed the irony of his posting. You see, his opponent in the CA-10 race, Mark DeSaulnier... well, as a long-time member of the MTC, DeSaulnier sat through the series of public workshops, studied the results of public surveys, and worked with MTC staff to draft their long-term plans, both Transportation 2030 and the early stages of Transportation 2035. So in an effort to establish his own bona fides, Garamendi basically just tried to lay claim to the transportion plan that DeSaulnier helped to create.

D'oh! Don't you hate it when that happens?

What The Numbers Say About John Garamendi In CA-10

babaloo — Mon, 04 May 2009 00:11:53 GMT

Watch out for the conventional wisdom; it'll bite you every time. So in the CA-10 race, the conventional wisdom is that with John Garamendi's entry into the race, he becomes the immediate frontrunner by virtue of his name recognition, his long experience, and his fundraising capacity. But what if those things have been overestimated? After all, Garamendi had all of those things when he ran for Lt. Governor in 2006. How did he do then? Well, the answer is... not too well.

The Secretary of State site doesn't break down the results of the Lt. Gov. primary by Congressional district, so we'll just have to look at the county-wide results, where Garamendi lost by anywhere from 9 to 19 points in the counties that comprise CA-10:

John Garamendi Jackie Speier
Alameda County 30.1% 49%
Contra Costa County 37.6% 50.3%
Solano County 38.9% 48.2%
Note: I've omitted Sacramento County from the chart (the county from which Garamendi hails) because it's such a small part of the district, with only 652 registered Democrats eligible to vote in the CA-10 primary.

	John Garamendi	Jackie Speier
Alameda County	30.1%	49%
Contra Costa County	37.6%	50.3%
Solano County	38.9%	48.2%

Now, the Draft Garamendi movement is proposing that Garamendi would be better suited to a run in CA-03 against Dan Lungren. Just for the sake of comparison, here are the primary results from 2006 for the counties that make up CA-03:

John Garamendi Jackie Speier
Alpine County 55.7% 31.8%
Amador County 58.5% 33.8%
Calaveras County 62.7% 30.1%
Sacramento County 42.1% 47.2%
Solano County 38.9% 48.2%

	John Garamendi	Jackie Speier
Alpine County	55.7%	31.8%
Amador County	58.5%	33.8%
Calaveras County	62.7%	30.1%
Sacramento County	42.1%	47.2%
Solano County	38.9%	48.2%

All of which is a kind of long-winded way of saying that Garamendi's perceived advantage in the CA-10 race may end up amounting to what most of the conventional wisdom in politics amounts to... not much. These numbers would certainly indicate that CA-03 holds a lot more promise for Garamendi than CA-10.

Flip it...
In the same vein, in response to my cross-posting of yesterday's diary to Bear Flag Blue an anonymous commenter there made the following assertion:

One argument I've heard is that Garamendi's base is in CD-03. That's simply not true. He has a lot of friends and support here, but he is Lt. Gov. of the state of California and former Insurance Commissioner. Last time I checked those were both statewide offices. I submit his base is the entire state.

That's an interesting assertion, but one which has no factual basis. Again, not to be too tiresome, but if you look at the Lt. Gov. primary results, you'll see that Garamendi had a pretty dismal showing throughout most of NorCal and only eked out a narrow victory over Jackie Speier because of his overwhelming support in SoCal. (Or maybe it was just a lack of name recognition on the part of Speier, a NorCal legislator.)

You know, I've facetiously suggested that Garamendi might as well run in CA-50 for all the district-specific knowledge he brings to the race in CA-10, but the reality is that he might stand a better chance down in a SoCal district than he would in either CA-10 or CA-03.

So here's an idea. There's a special election being held in CA-32 on May 19 that could get Garamendi to Washington to implement his big ideas even more quickly than the CA-10 race (since time seems to be of the essence for Garamendi). Looking at his Lt. Gov. numbers, they really seem to like him in Los Angeles County, which comprises Hilda Solis's old district, CA-32:

John Garamendi Jackie Speier
Los Angeles County 53.6% 24.6%

	John Garamendi	Jackie Speier
Los Angeles County	53.6%	24.6%

Or if that's just too soon, Garamendi could always opt to run in one of the districts that encompass Orange, Riverside, or Ventura Counties. The numbers suggest that he would do much better there than he would in either CA-10 or CA-03.

John Garamendi Jackie Speier
Orange County 55.9% 24.7%
Riverside County 52.6% 25.7%
Ventura County 54.5% 24.7%

	John Garamendi	Jackie Speier
Orange County	55.9%	24.7%
Riverside County	52.6%	25.7%
Ventura County	54.5%	24.7%

And heck, they even have UCs in the districts down there.

John Garamendi Lives In Congressional District 3. Period.

babaloo — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:33:31 GMT

Let's try to get this straightened out, once and for all. There's been a lot of back and forth about whether John Garamendi is a resident of CA-10, CA-03, or stuck in some sort of twilight zone between the two.

Unsurprisingly, most of the confusion has emanated from the Garamendi campaign. You might want to ask yourself why. Initially, several weeks ago, we heard that Garamendi was considering the CA-10 race and that he lives in Walnut Grove, which is in the district.

Then, more recently, we heard that, well, actually, part of Walnut Grove is in the district and part of it is CA-03.

Then, yesterday, at his big announcement ceremony, Garamendi offered this explanation:

But Garamendi acknowledged that while he and his wife of 43 years own property and have roots in the 10th District, they are not residents within its borders.
"My front yard is in the district, our bedroom is not," he said, while also noting that it is not a requirement of a congressional candidate to live within the district he or she represents.

Now, let's really investigate the meaning of that sentence. Think of Bill Clinton and the definition of "is." We know his bedroom is in CA-03. But his front yard is in CA-10. That has led many to speculate today that the district line is this crazy meandering construct that cuts people's houses in half. Sure, Garamendi's bedroom is in CA-03, but what about his kitchen, his bathroom, or his living room? And what about his front yard? Is his house in CA-03 and his mailbox in CA-10?

Well, here's what I've come up with from parsing Garamendi's claim. John Garamendi's bedroom has not been severed from the rest of his house -- or his yard, for that matter. You see, Garamendi lives in a house on the CA-03 side of the Sacramento River, which is the boundary line between the two Congressional districts. So "bedroom" appears to have been a metaphor for "my residence," and "front yard" appears to have been a metaphor for what he sees when he looks out from his balcony.

But I'm not asking you to take my word for it. Garamendi's address is 14216 State Hwy 160 in Walnut Grove. Here's the Google map of his residence. (h/t to Jeff in CA)

And for your viewing pleasure, here's a map of CA-03, with both John Garamendi's home in CA-03 and his ranch in CA-03 marked.

And finally, just to provide some juxtaposition, here's a map of CA-10, with Garamendi's house marked.

But there is a larger and more disturbing question than the mere fact that Garamendi is, at least technically, a carpetbagger. The residents of CA-10 have spent the last 12 years being lied to by Ellen Tauscher. She has pretty consistently told people whatever is convenient for her at the moment, with little regard for the truth. It is one of the things that has turned many of the Democrats in her district against her.

So how does it bode for a candidate, in his freaken announcement of his candidacy, to start bending and twisting the truth? Take another look:

[W]hile he and his wife of 43 years own property and have roots in the 10th District, they are not residents within its borders.
"My front yard is in the district, our bedroom is not."

There's a word for those kind of roots. They're called suckers. Which is, apparently, what Garamendi thinks the voters of CA-10 are.

Kyl To Place Hold On Tauscher Confirmation

babaloo — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 18:08:17 GMT

According to the blog DoD Buzz, Ellen Tauscher is in for a bumpy ride on her Senate confirmation hearing.

At a breakfast speech today, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) made a point of quoting some of Tauscher's recent statements on missile defense and he made clear he did not like the idea of her taking the State Department position. Tauscher has made it very clear she is skeptical of the Groundbased Midcourse anti-missile system and wants to see much more system testing done. Kyl is one of the system's biggest boosters on the Hill.
During his speech this morning, Kyl noted wryly that Tauscher's ostensible new job requires Senate confirmation, a clear signal that he may place a hold on Tauscher's nomination. A congressional aide confirmed that Kyl is expected to place a hold on Tauscher's nomination once it is formally made by the White House. [...]
Tauscher must have a pretty good idea just how much opposition she is likely to attract from Kyl and other conservative Republicans. When she announced she would take the arms control job in mid-March she said she faced a confirmation process that "is fraught with uncertainty and can take weeks, if not months."

News of the Senate hold is sure to throw the race for Tauscher's Congressional seat into turmoil. The candidates will be gearing up for a race that may or may not be happening at some amorphous point in the future, and we're sure to pick up even more quixotic candidates ala Gino Van Gundy.

But there is one good thing about the hold (on the flip)...
The story in DoD Buzz produced this gem:

Tauscher, chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, is a tough, frankly spoken member some might cast as a Democratic version of John Bolton, the republican who was either notorious or beloved, depending on your politics. Bolton had very strong views about arms control, as Tauscher has strong views on missile defense. While Bolton was the right of the right wing, Tauscher is much closer to the right of the left. She is often identified as a Blue Dog Democrat, although she's not one today. Instead, she leads the New Democrat Caucus, which shares much of the Blue Dog approach to life but is less fiscally conservative.

Ellen Tasucher, the Democratic John Bolton. Chew on that for awhile.

Apples And Oranges At The Contra Costa Democratic Central Committee

babaloo — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:41:45 GMT

The differences between the candidates in CA-10 could not have been more sharply drawn than they were at last night's Contra Costa Democratic Central Committee meeting. While there are real, substantive differences between Mark DeSaulnier and Joan Buchanan, those were not on display last night. Instead, DeSaulnier and Buchanan were talking gala versus pippin apples relative to John Garamendi's mandarin oranges. There are probably two reasons for the disparity in their presentations: 1) Garamendi has no familiarity with the district or its issues; and 2) Garamendi hasn't participated in any legislative activities for almost two decades.
So Buchanan led off the evening (each candidate was given 5 minutes to speak and 5 minutes of Q&A, with the other candidates out of the room) by stating that she would be making an announcement in the next week, but doesn't wish to talk about CA-10 issues until Tauscher has tendered her resignation. She proceeded to use the rest of her time to talk about the state budget and the propositions in the May 19 special election.

DeSaulnier split his allotted time pretty evenly, talking about the budget, the propositions, and CA-10 issues. He stated that he does not want to step on Tauscher's toes while she's still in office and has settled on the language, "If there's a vacancy, I will be a candidate." He announced his endorsement by the Contra Costa Central Labor Council along with an endorsement by the Building and Construction Trades Council, and listed the many local city council members who are flocking to endorse him. He indicated that he doesn't believe endorsements are enough to win a race, though, and that's why he'll be knocking on doors throughout the district.

DeSaulnier was asked what he thought the important issues were facing CA-10. His response was, "To paraphrase, 'It's the economy, stupid.'" He said that he looked forward to working with George Miller and Nancy Pelosi to ensure that there's more equity in the economy and that rebuilding the middle class would be a priority. He also focused on transportation -- his experience vis-à-vis his tenure on the MTC and the projects that he's shepherded through -- and said that he would hope to be able to use his knowledge to directly benefit the district as a member of the House Transportation Committee. Finally, he noted his commitment to the environment and his desire to continue his work on air quality issues at the federal level.

Then came Garamendi. In a polished speech that included a lot of lofty rhetoric, he talked in sweeping terms about his sense of anger and optimism. He launched into an attack against the Republican corruption and abuse that has left us in a perilous situation. He offhandedly mentioned his conversation with Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar at a conference earlier in the day in San Francisco about offshore drilling. Garamendi talked about the people who interjected into that conversation, "I've just lost my job," how wherever he goes, he hears, "I've just lost my job." He went on to ask, "How did it happen? Why did it happen? Government let us down. That's why we elected Obama. And that's why we can be optimistic.... Changes are afoot in Congress. So I can put aside all the anger to work for change."

And it went on like that for the entire time he was speaking. It's hard to know exactly how it played in the room, how well his rhetoric masked the fact that he was incredibly light on specifics about the district. To be sure, at the end nobody lobbied him to make sure that the new e-bart train to east county will not be served by diesel buses, as they did with DeSaulnier.

I suspect that ultimately this election is going to come down to a question of how much a part of the local community the voters will want their new Congress member to be. Will they want a big picture guy from the Clinton Administration who's not that familiar with the district, or will they want the local candidate with the deeper knowledge of the community and its particular issues. Over the next few months, we're going to find out.

John Garamendi Entering CA-10 Race

babaloo — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:17:00 GMT

Capitol Weekly reported this morning that it looks like Lt. Gov. John Garamendi will enter the race to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10.

We hear that John Garamendi is getting ready to jump into the Congressional race against Mark DeSaulnier for Ellen Tauscher's vacant, East Bay Congressional seat. Garamendi has name ID in a race that will likely feature low turn-out, and has to be seen as a front-runner (this from a column that has not seen a lick of polling in the race). So, let's go to the dominos, shall we? Of course, it's bad news for DeSaulnier and Joan Buchanan, who both wanted to run for the seat. Of course, everyone's got a free run at it, so there's nothing to stop DeSaulnier or Buchanan from plunging into the race. DeSaulnier already has some top endorsements, and is unlikely to back down now.

Apparently, they're hearing the same kinds of reports that I'm hearing. Last night at the Oakland Meetup, Shara Perkins, the campaign manager for Mark DeSaulnier, showed up to make phone calls to CDP delegates on behalf of Hilary Crosby, who is running for Controller of the CDP and has been endorsed by DeSaulnier. DeSaulnier was unable to attend the Meetup himself because he was at the endorsement meeting of the Contra Costa Central Labor Council (he got their endorsement by a unanimous vote).

Speaking at the Meetup, Perkins indicated that the DeSaulnier campaign had been hearing all day that Garamendi is definitely jumping into the CA-10 race.

More on the flip...
People at the meeting wondered out loud why Garamendi would enter a race in a district where he has practically no roots (other than the fact that he currently lives on the rural outskirts of the suburban district in Sacramento County, which boasts a mere 1,633 of the district's 367,306 voters.) They noted that they are desperately seeking a candidate of Garimendi's stature to take on Dan Lungren in CA-03. Garimendi hails from CA-03, his family ranch is in the district, and he would be uniquely well-positioned to run a strong campaign there in 2010.

Garamendi is scheduled to appear tonight, along with DeSaulnier and Joan Buchanan, at the Contra Costa Democratic Central Committee meeting. It'll be interesting to see what happens, but I suspect that his reception may be a little chilly.

CA-10 And Stockholm Syndrome

babaloo — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 02:18:40 GMT

Can an entire Congressional district suffer from Stockholm Syndrome? In the case of CA-10, it certainly seems like it. Let's take a peek at the chart for CA-10 and see if helps us to assess the mental state of its voters.

Case History

Throughout the '80s, CA-10 was actually located in the South Bay and represented by longtime Democratic Congressman Don Edwards. What we know today as the Contra Costa and Alameda County portions of CA-10 were pretty evenly split up amongst three Congressional districts - CA-07, CA-08, and CA-09 (represented at the time by George Miller, Ron Dellums, and Pete Stark respectively). The Solano County portion of CA-10 was in CA-04, which was represented by Democrat Vic Fazio.

Meanwhile, throughout the '80s, the population in the East Bay exploded. After the '91 census and subsequent redistricting, the physical areas covered by CA-07, CA-08, and CA-09 were reconfigured, downsized, and renamed as CA-07, CA-09, and CA-13 respectively. The appellation of CA-10 was given to the new district created from the excess portions of those three districts (much of Contra Costa County, a smaller portion of Alameda County). Fairfield was added to CA-07, and Dixon was put in CA-03. (As a side note, the '91 redistricting put Edwards into CA-16, where he won reelection. When Edwards retired in 1995, he was replaced by Zoe Lofgren.)

Then, after the '01 Census, the districts were once again redrawn. The Contra Costa/Alameda cities of Danville, San Ramon, Dublin, and Pleasanton were subtracted from CA-10 and added to CA-11 (McNerney), and the Solano County communities of Dixon and Fairfield were taken from CA-07 and added to CA-10, leaving CA-10 in its current awkward and unlovely configuration.

So what does all this have to do with Stockholm Syndrome, the psychological phenomenon that leads victims to identify and sympathize with their captors? Well, here's the story of CA-10 in a nutshell.

Up until the election of 1992, residents of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties had been represented by either George Miller (CA-07), Ron Dellums (CA-08), or Pete Stark (CA-09). I think we can agree that's a pretty progressive set of Congress members.

Suddenly, in 1992, with a newly redrawn district, voters in CA-10 elected the execrable Bill Baker to Congress. Then, in the Republican Revolution of '94, he was easily re-elected. Democrats in the district (which was pretty evenly drawn, registration-wise -- see the 1999 registration statistics, the farthest back the SoS site goes) were in shock. They had gone from being represented by some of the most progressive voices in the country to being represented by a social and economic arch-conservative wacko.

What had happened? Well, the most obvious answer to that question (though not the right one) was that the newly-minted Congressional district was deeply conservative. Democrats were spooked and didn't quite know how to react to this new state of affairs. Instead of analyzing the demographics and registration of the district and questioning the efficacy of their local party apparatus or its apparent lack of leadership, they rushed to the conclusion that the Democratic message was wrong for this new district and that if they were to ever regain the seat, they needed to triangulate madly (these were the Clinton years, after all).

The rest of the patient's chart is on the flip...
Diagnosis

1996. Enter Ellen Tauscher, announcing her candidacy as a business-friendly Democrat. You know, not one of those scary tax-and-spend liberals. Socially liberal and fiscally conservative. A moderate. Just what the Democrats in the district needed if they were to ever reclaim the seat in a Republican district. Of course, most people overlooked the fact that she was enormously wealthy and able to self-fund to the tune of $1.65 million and focused on the "she's a moderate" part of that equation. And so Ellen Tauscher was elected by a narrow margin in a hard-fought race. The following cycle, in 1998, she was able to fend off the Republican challenger. By 2000, the Republicans had pretty much given up.

Then came the '01 census and redistricting. In its new configuration, CA-10 was suddenly D+10 in registration. In the years since, that number has steadily risen, to the point where it's now D+18.

And that's where the Stockholm Syndrome comes into play. If you walk precincts in the district, if you attend events and talk to Democrats, they will almost all tell you the same story. It goes something like this. "Yeah, I don't agree with some of the things that Ellen Tauscher does, but she's the best we can do in this district. This is a really conservative district, and if we ran liberal candidates like other parts of the Bay Area, the Republicans would win. We have to have a moderate like Ellen in order to be able to win in this district."

So where do they get that idea? Well, first and foremost from Tauscher herself, who has used this myth to cover for her pro-business giveaways, her hawkishness, and her New Democrat/Blue Dog affiliations. The media has also been complicit. Most of the district is covered by Lisa Vorderbrueggen, a local political reporter who uses the nomenclature of "liberal," "moderate," and "conservative" as such a crutch that it's a miracle she can walk anymore. Almost every article you will read from Lisa cements this view of the district. In one recent article discussing potential candidates, Lisa managed this hat trick of meme reptition:

He is a renowned moderate who could be a good fit for this centrist district. [...]
And as a progressive candidate, he may be too liberal for the moderate CD10.[...]
CD10 is still a centrist district with a high number of swing voters. I expect the Democratic front-runners will run toward the middle.

And so the poor Democrats of CA-10 have come to believe that they must stay with their captors and help them or... well, very bad things will happen to them.

Treatment

So how can this mass delusion be treated? Well, in a perfect world, there would be therapy and lots of it. But we have a special election coming up in the next few months, and we don't have the time for that. So how do we treat the patient? Sadly, look for any serious candidates to promote themselves as moderates; they know what's up in the district. The trick is going to be to try to see through the labeling that they will feel compelled to adopt.

As progressives, we're going to need to do what we keep telling the media THEY should do. Stop with the labels already, and start focusing on specific issues. Ask the candidates how they would have voted on some of the issues that have been important to us in the past. Ask them how they would vote on issues that they'll have to address once they get to DC. Ask them about specific legislation that they've authored/supported in their current/previous roles. Perhaps more importantly, ask them what caucuses they would join in DC. Blue Dog? New Democrats? Populist? Progressive? And if they don't give you a straight answer, assume the worst. Just don't rely on the tired labels that are going to be rendered even more meaningless by CA-10's psychological issues.

Prognosis

The result of this election is going to be critically important to the health of CA-10. If Democrats in the district can manage to elect a candidate who stands tall on their issues, perhaps they can, over time, come to realize that they were needlessly hiding behind/empowering their captor by accepting her labeling. Unfortunately, if voters are persuaded that they must flock to another Tauscher-like figure, the district may suffer such a severe setback that recovery becomes impossible.

The Horserace

babaloo — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:19:03 GMT

Politico is reporting that Joan Buchanan has dropped a poll in CA-10. In a real shocker (not), her poll shows her with the lead among all candidates.

State Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan commissioned a poll showing her narrowly leading DeSaulnier in a crowded election field that includes two unannounced Republican candidates.
The poll shows Buchanan leading DeSaulnier 21 to 18 percent, with Republican San Ramon mayor Abram Wilson at 14 percent and former GOP Assemblyman Guy Houston at 13 percent. [...]
The poll, commissioned by the Democratic firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates, was conducted between March 22-23. It surveyed 400 likely district-wide voters, and has a 4.9 percent margin of error.

Some rambling thoughts on the flip...
I hope I'm wrong, but it's seeming more and more likely to me that we're going to have a Buchanan/DeSaulnier horserace to fill Ellen Tauscher's vacant seat. In that vein, it may be helpful to look at the results from Tuesday's special election in SD-26.

First, this is a state senate district that has Democratic registration at 65.62% and Republicans at 10.88%.

So in Tuesday's election, in a district with 390,000 voters, approximately 23,000 turned out to vote. Here are the results:

Candidate	Party	Votes	Percent
Mike Davis	Dem	5,158	21.78%
Saundra Davis	Dem	1,803	7.61%
Cindy Varela Henderson	P&F	414	1.75%
Curren D. Price, Jr.	Dem	8,442	35.65%
Nachum Shifren	Rep	2,731	11.53%
Robert Cole	Dem	3,133	13.23%
Mervin Leon Evans	Dem	136	0.57%
Jonathan Friedman	Dem	1,864	7.87%

Now I'll freely admit that I'm not that familiar with the candidates or the issues in SD-26. But just from my very limited knowledge, I would have expected the numbers for the two Assembly members in contention, Price and Davis, to be a little closer. Granted, SEIU endorsed Price, and maybe that was good for an extra 13% in the district.

But when I look at those numbers, along with the numbers from other recent special primary elections, I'm struck by the fact that the difference between the two frontrunners is always smaller than the number of votes cast for the also-rans. In SD-26, 3,000 votes separated Davis from Price; the four other candidates in the Democratic field accounted for 6,500 votes.

I'm not going to go off on an IRV discussion, but it's certainly an issue that I believe is going to loom large in CA-10. I was interested to see this comment at Calitics from a voter in SD-26:

I turned out
...and voted for Saundra Davis. My local polling place was a ghost town. So...NOW can anyone tell me why we like Curren Price? Because he was my #3 or 4, issues-wise, compared to the other Democratic candidates.

My very real concern as this election starts to take shape is that we'll end up with a lot of progressive voters in CA-10 asking that same question.

It's Fred Klaske Redux!!

babaloo — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:23:11 GMT

"What happens when one of SF's top political minds runs for Congress vs. the East Bay political establishment? Follow @adriel4congress & see"

Would Ellen Tauscher Lie To Us?

babaloo — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:32:16 GMT

MoveOn just sent out an email to its members asking them to lobby their Congressional representatives on the upcoming (maybe today, maybe tomorrow?) House vote on Iraq appropriations:

According to the Washington Post, Democrats have apparently worked out a "deal" to give President Bush billions of dollars more for Iraq -- no strings attached -- in exchange for increased domestic spending.

The WaPo article details how the leadership (Steny Hoyer and Harry Reid in this case -- Nancy Pelosi seems to be noncommittal at this point) has decided that Democrats must "compromise" with Bush on Iraq in order to gain an additional $11 billion for domestic spending on items such as emergency drought relief in the southeast and the subprime mortgage crisis.

Apparently lost on these master tacticians is the fact that Bush has adamantly stated he will veto any domestic spending appropriations over and above what he has requested. But Hoyer, in demonstrating Democrats' willingness to yield to Bush, has already given away the store. The same article quotes House Minority Whip Roy Blunt: (emphasis added)

Blunt said yesterday that Democrats will give in on war funding, with or without additional money for domestic programs. "There's no reason to make a bad bargain," he said. "The president holds all the cards."

Of course, the president doesn't hold all the cards. He simply holds all the backbone.

More on the flip...
Congress has the ability to refuse to fund Bush's Iraq debacle, and, in fact, the Progressive Caucus sent a letter back in July, which was signed by 70 members of Congress (in September, they updated the letter, which was subsequently signed by 90 Representatives) which stated that these members of Congress would not support any funding for Iraq unless those appropriations specifically were directed to redeploying our troops home.

Dear Mr. President:
Seventy House Members wrote in July to inform you that they will only support appropriating additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of our troops out of Iraq before you leave office.
Now you are requesting an additional $45 billion to sustain your escalation of U.S. military operations in Iraq through next April, on top of the $145 billion you requested for military operations during FY08 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, even more of us are writing anew to underscore our opposition to appropriating any additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq other than a time-bound, safe redeployment as stipulated above.
More than 3,742 of our brave soldiers have died in Iraq. More than 27,000 have been seriously wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed or injured in the hostilities and more than 4 million have been displaced from their homes. Furthermore, this conflict has degenerated into a sectarian civil war and U.S. taxpayers have paid more than $500 billion, despite assurances that you and your key advisors gave our nation at the time you ordered the invasion in March, 2003 that this military intervention would cost far less and be paid from Iraqi oil revenues.
We agree with a clear and growing majority of the American people who are opposed to continued, open-ended U.S. military operations in Iraq, and believe it is unwise and unacceptable for you to continue to unilaterally impose these staggering costs and the soaring debt on Americans currently and for generations to come.

But, getting back to reality, MoveOn's email today went on to talk about why Democrats are once again preparing to fold on Iraq and what we can do about it:

Why is this happening again? When Democrats get tough with the president on Iraq he usually accuses them of hurting the troops. This time, he has been threatening to lay off military personnel and blame the Democrats. Once again, Democrats got nervous and backed down.
Yes, Bush is a bully. But Democrats can stand up to him. They need to know that voters are counting on them to confront the president's scare tactics head on.
Here's how the New York Times explained their latest "compromise":
The decision to free some money for the war without a deadline or goal for withdrawal would represent a major concession by Democrats. They had earlier said they would not send Mr. Bush any more war money this year unless he accepted a change in Iraq policy. But Democratic leaders now say they have concluded that a logjam of 11 appropriations bills cannot be broken without acceding to at least some of the president's demand for more war money.

What we need to make clear to them is that you can't cut deals when it comes to war. There is no trade-off between getting our troops out of a religious civil war in Iraq and making progress on priorities here at home.
Democrats need to stand up and say that it's the president who is hurting our troops. He has them bogged down in an un-winnable civil war, with no end in sight. When he refuses to sign war funding bills that contain measures that would correct his reckless policy, he is the one who is keeping our troops and the Iraqis at risk.

What is most interesting to me about this email is that MoveOn is targeting Ellen Tauscher and asking her constitiuents to lobby her by phone today. Now, Ellen Tauscher is one of the original signatories to the Progressive Caucus's July letter and also signed the September letter. So I'm not quite sure why a lobbying effort targeting her would be necessary - unless (oh, my God, say it isn't so) she plans to renege on her promise to the American people.

Every Democrat in Congress needs to hear a groundswell of concern from their constituents. Can you call Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher right away and tell her to oppose any deal that does not include a firm timeline to end the war? Tell her that voters are counting on Congress to keep their word and stand up to the president-not capitulate, again.
Here's where to call:
Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher
Phone: 202-225-1880